|
|
Post by jarcenas on Mar 21, 2009 12:41:36 GMT -5
I think we should, it would do society greater good if we see education not as a way to achieve a pragmatic end, but one to enlighten oneself.
|
|
|
|
Post by disgruntledcolonel on Mar 21, 2009 12:52:54 GMT -5
Yes, we definitely should, I've always seen education as an end in itself and that learning for learning's sake should be encouraged as part of the bigger picture rather than just being able to rattle off facts and dates. Conversely I'm no fan of art for art's sake, but yep I'm all about enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 21, 2009 13:33:49 GMT -5
Absolutely. But the reasons it's not valued/taught more now are pretty complicated. Since higher education is expensive, students will often pick majors that they think will pay them more/let them finish early. A professor named Jeffrey Williams has done a lot of good work examining how the cost of higher ed leads to choices in majors, rejection of classes that don't seem to be "worth" it, etc. There is a pragmatic side to why students sometimes choose not to take philosophy classes. If you were paying hundreds of dollars a class and could expect tens of thousands of dollars in debt upon graduation, you might naturally be pickier when it came to choosing courses. Universities could reverse this problem very easily, though, by beefing up the GECs that most colleges require. You could require philosophy, a course in logic, courses in ethics, literature and history instead of making them optional. Students do have to take a bit of history, depending on the school, but they can usually sub out of many classes like ethics, etc. Lots of people opt for easier classes instead of wading through the harder stuff. This wouldn't give them a choice. There is also the fact that universities are not as independent of business concerns as they used to be, so the money they get to enhance things usually goes to medical research or the business school. Or athletics. They like hiring profs who can bring in grant money, and often times that means the sciences and the medical field again. I have nothing against the sciences, we need everything they do, but the other aspects of a well rounded education are often ignored by administrators who come from business instead of academic backgrounds. Sigh. It's complicated.
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 21, 2009 13:35:28 GMT -5
I would also add that I'm torn on one aspect of what you put in the title: Individualism. Unless you somehow mean individual responsibility, then my own personal opinion is that there is way too much individualism, and students need more courses that tie in their experiences with a community. Education is supposed to make you a better citizen, and I'm not sure that stressing individualism as a goal really supports that. Perhaps if we talked about what you meant by individualism, though, it would help?
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 21, 2009 14:22:53 GMT -5
I'm not voting because I'm torn on it.
Whose philosophy? Whose ethics? Explain Liberal arts. Explain individualism.
I'm more of a believer that school is for teaching the three R's. Home is where life education should come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 21, 2009 15:01:44 GMT -5
If you were paying hundreds of dollars a class and could expect tens of thousands of dollars in debt upon graduation, you might naturally be pickier when it came to choosing courses. As a current student, this is all too true. I'm looking at what to schedule for next semester. Because of the status of financial aid and degree requirements I don't need to be full time. It would be cheaper for me to take the bare minimum classes this fall. But, part of me would like to take something like another physics class or higher level calculus. I just don't know if I can justify the cost. Taking a course in philosophy or history, although interesting, is not even an option. I simply can't justify it, it won't set me apart from other graduates, and the monetary cost is just too great. |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 21, 2009 15:35:40 GMT -5
If you were paying hundreds of dollars a class and could expect tens of thousands of dollars in debt upon graduation, you might naturally be pickier when it came to choosing courses. As a current student, this is all too true. I'm looking at what to schedule for next semester. Because of the status of financial aid and degree requirements I don't need to be full time. It would be cheaper for me to take the bare minimum classes this fall. But, part of me would like to take something like another physics class or higher level calculus. I just don't know if I can justify the cost. Taking a course in philosophy or history, although interesting, is not even an option. I simply can't justify it, it won't set me apart from other graduates, and the monetary cost is just too great. True, Universities have almost become intellectual trade schools rather than places of upper learning. There are a lot of interest courses that I would like to take, but all my courses are lined up except for 8 electives, and I've already got 7 of those. People enrolled in General Studies tend to get laughed at. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 21, 2009 15:40:09 GMT -5
All are subjective. You can't ensure every teacher will attempt objectivity. In more than a few cases it would become more like indoctrination than education. There's more than enough of that crap in schools here already. It's like this bilge: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7896751.stmLet's take out all the actual education and replace it with detailed instructions on how to live their lives the way we want them to. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 24, 2009 9:04:08 GMT -5
In the philosophy and ethics classes I've taken, it's not been about personal pet philosophies, but rather about teaching the various systems of ethics, philosophical history and ideas.
Regarding your article, I'm not sure what problem you have with kids in the UK learning about history, health, or art. I would have a problem with the faith and belief category, but the others sounded just fine to me, and the article indicates nothing about telling the children "how to live their lives the way we want them to."
|
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Mar 24, 2009 9:30:43 GMT -5
In the philosophy and ethics classes I've taken, it's not been about personal pet philosophies, but rather about teaching the various systems of ethics, philosophical history and ideas. Regarding your article, I'm not sure what problem you have with kids in the UK learning about history, health, or art. I would have a problem with the faith and belief category, but the others sounded just fine to me, and the article indicates nothing about telling the children "how to live their lives the way we want them to." Not having a sufficient grasp of maths and written english (or whatever your local language is) renders you unemployable for all but the most menial tasks. It's all very well teaching people how to love and respect each other, but if they are functionally illiterate they are essentially worthless once they leave school. My objection to all these nice luxurious sounding ideas is partly that they are taught at the expense of the two subjects that allow to explore other knowledge independantly. Firstly, those two are kind of mutually exclusive. Secondly, all this "citizenship" bollocks should be down to the individual as a matter of conscience. Targeting primary school kids with these fashionable viewpoints is pretty low. Teaching kids which forms of interaction are acceptable is unnecessary. The whole point of school from the outset is forcing them into an environment where they have to interact, it's the way little folks develop their social skills. I also strongly object to the idea of teachers lecturing my children on morality and ethics. Bringing my children up to understand the difference between right and wrong etc, is mine and my wife's job, not their teachers. History and philosophy are already available as classes at most levels of secondary education here so meh |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 24, 2009 10:26:00 GMT -5
In the philosophy and ethics classes I've taken, it's not been about personal pet philosophies, but rather about teaching the various systems of ethics, philosophical history and ideas. Regarding your article, I'm not sure what problem you have with kids in the UK learning about history, health, or art. I would have a problem with the faith and belief category, but the others sounded just fine to me, and the article indicates nothing about telling the children "how to live their lives the way we want them to." Not having a sufficient grasp of maths and written english (or whatever your local language is) renders you unemployable for all but the most menial tasks. It's all very well teaching people how to love and respect each other, but if they are functionally illiterate they are essentially worthless once they leave school. My objection to all these nice luxurious sounding ideas is partly that they are taught at the expense of the two subjects that allow to explore other knowledge independantly. There is nothing to indicate they are taught "at the expense" of literacy and math. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that science and history shoud not be taught in school? No, learning how to be independent and learning how to work with others are not two mutually exclusive concepts. That's a ridiculous assertion. Second, "citizenship" concepts have been taught since the Greeks were busy teaching pupils (a fact students would learn through getting that history that should be a part of the curriculum). It's hardly a "fashionable" concept, considering most civilizations have considered it an important part of a good education. Knowing how citizenship works is an important aspect of functioning in society. Yes, because the little folks always develop appropriate social skills naturally on their own. Right? I'm with you about lecturing on morality and ethics to a degree, especially if it's infused with a religious point of view. But my experience with them is that they hardly go further than asking the kids to be nice to each other, not punch each other or steal stuff. I'm sure you and your wife would hardly object to that. They're not teaching them to vote for certain candidates, to monitor their eating practices (unless you count health, for goodnesssakes) or other things I assume you'd define as "ethical." It's also not like there are whole classes devoted to "ethics." Pity there aren't classes that teach children about the different systems of thought. You seriously think people should wait until high school (which is what I assume you mean by secondary education--if you meant college, that's even more astonishing) to hear about history and philosophy? Wow. I want more for my own kid. Not teaching kids about history, especially world history, doesn't help them understand the context of the books they're reading in class nor about the culture they're born into. It encourages myopic thinking. |
|
